gray wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 07:45:Note, Epic have come to this realisation.

Somewhat. I mean, everyone knows this even if they aren't acting on it, but Epic is doing something that strikes me more as killing time between consoles and flexing their creative juices by doing a small, low risk game where they let the inmates run the asylum, as others have said about other things around here recently. It strikes me as more due to timing than anything else. But that's fine, if they learn something and it makes a profit I can see them putting a second team permanently on games such as that.

The sentiment is correct but the thinking is off. AAA games absolutely have to succeed because of the level of investment required to produce such a thing. This leads to formulaic output that they know will suceed because it's just like the last game and that sold well.

Their problem is not in gamers expectations but in that they are producing AAA titles and then complaining about the nature of AAA titles.

If you don't like it, produce smaller titles that can afford to fail and experiment with their format. You might be the next Minecraft, just look at DayZ.

I agree with her position in general, but she didn't argue it well. For example:and try things that weren't as much fun because they were different.

Is she lamenting the fact that people are less willing to play games that aren't fun? If your innovation isn't entertaining, it's not the gamers' fault. Or:It does limit innovation, because if something isn't working as you get towards shipping, you have to cut it or revert back to what you know does work.

Same thing. Why exactly is it a bad thing that you have to cut/revert something that isn't working? It seems like she is complaining not that people dislike innovation, but they are less willing to accept poor games. Why exactly is that a bad thing?